ArticleFrontiers in genetics2024
Prenatal diagnosis of the recurrent 1q21.1 microdeletions in fetuses with ultrasound anomalies and review of the literature.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Residual risk of clinically significant copy number variations in fetuses with ultrasonographic soft markers following exclusion of non-invasive prenatal screening-detectable findings.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- Chromosomal Microarray in Children Born Small for Gestational Age - Single Center Experience.Balkan journal of medical genetics : BJMG · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The recurrent 1q21.1 microdeletion syndrome is an autosomal dominant disorder and is characterized by dysmorphic facial features, microcephaly, developmental delay, and congenital defects. However, most studies on the distal deletions in the 1q21.1 region were diagnosed postnatally. This study aimed to provide a better understanding of the ultrasound and molecular findings of fetuses with recurrent 1q21.1 microdeletions in prenatal diagnosis. Methods: In this retrospective study, we reported 21 cases with the recurrent 1q21.1 microdeletion syndrome diagnosed at our prenatal diagnostic center from January 2016 to January 2023. The clinical data were reviewed for these cases, including the maternal demographics, indications for invasive testing, ultrasound findings, CMA results, and pregnancy outcomes. Results: In the study, a total of 21 cases with recurrent 1q21.1 microdeletions were diagnosed prenatally by CMA. Fifteen cases were described with ultrasound indications, and the most common findings are as follows: increased nuchal translucency (NT) (26.7%), intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR) (26.7%), congenital heart defects (CHD) (20%), and congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract (CAKUT) (13.3%). All the cases with the distal 1q21.1 deletions contain the common minimal region (located between BP3 and BP4) and eight OMIM genes. Parental studies to determine the inheritance of the deletion were performed for eight cases, and half of the cases were inherited from one of the parents. Pregnancy outcomes were available for nine cases; eight (88.9%) pregnancies were determined to be terminated and one (11.1%) was full-term delivery. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the largest study to find that fetuses with recurrent 1q21.1 microdeletions were closely associated with increased NT, CHD, IUGR, and CAKUT. In addition, ours is the first study to report that cerebral ventriculomegaly might be associated with recurrent 1q21.1 microdeletions. More comprehensive studies are needed for a better understanding of the prenatal phenotype-genotype relationship of the recurrent 1q21.1 microdeletion syndrome in future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.